together, we can. together, we will. god bless you, and god bless the united states america. thank you, everyone. thank you. thank you, iowa. thank you, america. together, we will do this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ♪ >> well, she was an american girl raised on promises she couldn't help thinking that there was a little more to life somewhere else

after all it was a great big world with lots of places to run to and if she had to die trying she had one little promise she was going to keep oh yeah all right take it easy baby make it last all night she was an american girl ♪ it was kind of cold that night she still owed alone on a balcony yes, she could hear the cars roll by out on 441 like waves crashing on the beach and for one desperate moment there he crept bk in her memory

got its so painful when something that's so close is still so far out of reach oh yeah all right take it easy baby make it last all night she was an american girl ♪ ♪

♪ >> let's win ts thing. >> amen, let's do it this time. it is going to happen. thank you. thank you so much. hello there. thank you so much. ♪

♪

fluf

♪

♪

>> tempo pawlenty outlined his public policy position at a speech for the council of foreign relations on tuesday. he criticized the obama relations. this is one hour. >> thank you for being here. i'm delighted to have a chance to show my views. there are challenges facing the

united states of america. i want to thank the council on foreign relations. he advanced the cause. i want to speak about a number of opportunities and dangers we face in the middle east. we have a situation where the revolution is often the process of a more democratic and open and prosperous arab world. fix caper in the hands of oppression is a real possibility. at the same time, we understood

these resolutions but the hour. just as the people and syria elsewhere see a chance for a better life a genuine free them, the leader of a radical islam see the chance to replica turmoil. we were presented as a challenge us in that case. are we up to the challenge? my answer is, of course we are. if we're clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. our nation has done this in the past. at the end of world war ii, in the last decade of the cold war, in the most recent war on

terror and we can do it again. but president obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. he has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests. our clear commitment to our principlesnd parts of the republican party now seem to be trying to outbid the democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. this is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. the stes are too high. and the opportunity is simply too great. no one in this administration predicted the events of the arab spring. but the freedom deficit in the arab world was no secret. for 60 years, western nations excused and accommodated the

lack of freedom in the middle east. that could not last. the days of comfortable private deals with the dictators were coming to an end in the age of twitter, youtubeand facebook. and histy teaches that there is no such thing as stable oppression. president obama ignored that lesson of history. instead of promoting democracy, whose fruit we see now ripening across the region, he adopted a murky policy. he called it engagement. engagement meant that, in 2009, when the iranian ayatollah still an election and the people of the country rose up in protest president obama held his tongue. his silence validated the mullets, despite blood on their hands and nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels. while protesters were killed and tortured, secretary clinton said

the administration was "waiting to see the outcome of the internal iranian processes. she and the president waited long enough to see the green revolution, the green movement crushed. engagement also meant that, in his first year in office, president obama cut democracy funding for the egyptian society by 74%. as one american democracy organization noted, this was perceived as signaling a lack of support. they perceive correctly. it was a lack of support. in engagement also meant that, when crisis erupted in cairo this year as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in liberty square, secretary clinton declared "the egyptian government is stable. two weeks later, mubarak was gone.

when secretary clinton visited cairo after the move barak fall, activist groups refused to meet with her. who can blame them? the forces we now need to succeed in egypt, the pro- democracy secular political party is, these are the very people president obama cut off and secretary clinton dismissed. the obama engagement policy in syria who led the administration to call the sheer allis not a reformer, even as his regime was shooting protesters dead in the street. president obama announced his plan to give them "alternative vision of himself. does anyone outside of a therapist's office have any idea what that means? this is what passes for moral clarity in the obama administration. by contrast, i called for his departure on march 29.

a call for it again today. we should recall our master from damascus and i call for that again today. the leader of the united states should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where america stands. as president, i will not. we need a president who folia understands that american never leads from behind. we cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in the least tern history. we need decisive, clear right leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interest.

>> the government of the middle east fallen to four broad categories and each requires a different strategic approach. the firs consists of three countries in various stages of transition toward democracy. before myrlie ke republics in egypt, tunisia, and libya. iraq is also in this category. for these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy in the region. elections have produced anti- democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. we must do more than monitor polling places. we must redirect foreign aid away from efforts. we must direct those efforts toward building the allies.

governed by free people according to the rule of law. we must insist that the international partners get of the sidelines and do the same. we should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions face had by libya, tunisia, and especially egypt. whereas libya is rich in oil and indonea is small, among the regions of the emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity of the biggest danger for american interests. too many egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineer in the last decade. we act out of friendship when we tell egyptians and every new democracy that economic growth and prosperity are e result of

free markets and free trade. not subsidies in the foreign aid. if we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth. in libya, the best of america can provide this to stop the bleeding from behind and commit to the strength of removing gadhafi. beyond libya, america should always promotion of universal principles. we should press new friends to end discrimination against women, established independent courts, and the press.

and we must insist on religious freedoms for all. the second category of faith in the arab monarchies. some are engaging tell in what looks like a genuine reform. this should earn at our praise and our assistance. they must forge a partnership with their own people leading a step-by-step toward more democratic societies. the to understand these changes. and thereby deepen their own legitimacy if they choose this route. they deserve our help. others are resisting reform.

president obama spoke about brain in his recent speech, he neglected to other two important words. saudi arabia. u.s. and saudi relations are at all-time low. they're going downhill long before the uprisings began. they saw the american administration yearning to engage iran at the time that they correctly saw ahead as a rtal enemy. we need to tell them what we thinwhich will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. you will develop it by demonstrating that we share the great concern about iran. and we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from iranian aggression. at the same time, we need to be frank about what they must do in

their own country. above all, they need the reform and open society. their treatment of questions, other minorities, and of women is indefensible and must change. we of the reform will come to saudi arabia sooner and more smoothly if the royal famy to accept and designed in. it will come later if they resist. the vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms. but not as a substitute for lasting reform. the third category consists of states that are directly hostile to america. they include iran and syria. as already vastly undermine the

appeal. and the killing have significantly weakened it. the success of peaceful protests has shown the world of terror is not ly evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. peacul protests may soon bring down the regime in syria. the 2009 protests inspire them to seek freedom. similarly, the protes of this year and the flt of the regime can inspire them once again. we have an interest in seeing an end to his regime and. the obama administration has not only frustrated syrians fighting for freedom, it has demonstrated

a strategic blindness. the government of iran and syria are enemies of the united states. they're not rormers and never ll be. to weaken or replace one who is to weaken or replace the other. the fall of the mafia and damascus would weaken the headquters there. d it would weaken the iranian regime itself. take advantage of this moment, we shod press every diplomatic and economic shanahan to bring the reign of terror to end. the more forceful sanctions.

thus the need to work live turkey in the era of nations to further isolate the regime and we need to encourage opponents byaking our own position very clear right now. when he goes, how they will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. syria is their only ally. if we deal the way, it will hasten the fall. that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. but as the opportunity offered the brave men and women of the arab spring. the march of freedom in the middle east cut across the diversity of religiousnd political groups. it is born of a particular unity. it is a united front from stolen elections and stolen

liberty. secret police, corruption, and the state sanctioned violence. this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and to speak with clarity. more sanctions, more and better broadcasting into iran, more assistance to access the internetnd satellite tv. more efforts -- very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to the nuclear program. in 2008, barack obama said that he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and israel. this year, he said that we remain committed to preventing

iran fromcquiring nuclear weapons. even our closest allies are confused. for which legal authority already exists, we should enact and enforce a new pending legislation the strength in some sanctions, particularly against the revolutionary guards that control much of the economy. in the middle of all of this is israel. israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for. and what it has accomplished. and is unique in the threat of

annihilation. it has long been a bastion of democracy in our region of tyranny and violence. it is by far the closest ally in that part of the world. despite nemours, a tax of various forms, israel offers all of its citizens, including 1.5 million arabs of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to vote as well as access to independent courts. and all other democratic rights. nowhere has president obama's lack of judgment and then more stunning than in his dealings with israel. it breaks my heart that the president of this country treats israel, our great friend has a problem, rather than as an ally. the president seems to genuinely believe that the palestinian

conflict lies at the heart of every problem of the middle east. he said in cairo in 2009 and again this year. president obama could not be more wrong. the uprisings are not about israelis and palestinians. they are about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments israel built in jerusalem. today, the president doesn't really have a policy toward the peace process. he has an attitude. let's be frank about what bad attitude is. he thinks israel is the problem and he thinks the answer is always more pressure on israel. i reject that anti-israel

attitude. i rejected because israel is a close and reliable democratic allies. i know the people of israel wants peace. israeli-palestinian pea is further away now that the way that barack obama came to office. it doesn't have to be permanent. we must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region receives clearly that america stands strongly with israel. i would take a new approach. why would never undermine the negotiating pition or pressure to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself. secondi would not pressure israel to negotiate with a palestinian government that includes hamas.

in short, they need to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step toward global legitimacy. i would insure assistance to the palestinians with the teaching of hatred and palestinian huss firms continues. that must end of. i would recommend cultivating end of power in modern forces in the palestinian society. when they have leaders that are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law and understands that the war has given them to lives of the goodness, of violence, and poverty, peace will come. released is changing before our

very eyes. the government has not kept up. it abandoned of the promotion of democracy just as they were about to ize its. just as their own people rose against them. in downplad our principleand diance us from key allies. these policies have failed. the administration has abandoned the danaher and of the price of the american leadership in the region. in a region that has looked to us for security and progress, and the wonders where we are and what we are of two. the next president must do better. today, in our own republican party, some of back and conclude our projection of strain in defense of freedom was a product

of different times in different challenges. while times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not. in the 1980's, we were up against a violent totalitarian ideology been done subjugating the people in the principles of the west. while others sought to coexist, president reagan instead sought victory. so must we, today. america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. it is not wrong for republicans to question the conduct of president obama's leadership in libya. it is not wrong for republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in afghanistan. my belief is that the general's voice should carry the most weight.

what is wrong as for the republican party to shrink from the challenges of american leadership in the world. history repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakest and foreign policy cost us and our children much more than we will ever say in the budget -- saved in the budget line item. america has one political party devoted to decline and withdrawal it doesn't need a second one. our enemies respect and respond to strength. sometimes strength means military intervention. sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. that always means moral clarity in word and deed. that is the legacy of republican foreign policy at its best in our next republican president

must carry the banner around the world. of equality and opportunity for all citizens, it remains a dream for people in the middle east and around the world. as america stands for these principles and stands with our friends and allies, the middle east will transform this moment of turbulence into a more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress. i look forward to your questions and the discussion. [applause] >> have declined, retrenchment, and with a role. really?

>> here are some examples the support that characterization. at a minimum, the commander in chief needs to lend more crity and rhetorical strength to the values and principles that we support and embrace here and around the world. at the beginning of the green revolution when people were standing, asking where the united states stands and the president stands essentially new on those issues, that is a form of withdrawal, retrenchment. when you have the president of the of the states take the recommendation of the most forward leaning and impact full military leader in afghanistan when he calls for the complement of surge troops to be a round out their maximum level of little while longer, not for 10 years or 20 years' worth of nationuilding.

but the logical and intermediate next step go of makingure the security forces are trained in volumend quality so that i can reasonably take up more of the charge and the challenge of security and afghanistan. notwithstanding that recommendation and compared to the political calendar, it strikes me as something that is a sense of with a droll, retrenchment, and decline. the list goes on. we have the president of the united states saying to syria -- is an enabler to terrorism, send an ambassador back to damascus, refuses to address in any moral clarity, all of those things support that statement. >> america is exceptional and we

have a moral clarity to lead the world. what is the moral clarity? >> that we and other developed nations to support these principles and more. human rights. free and fair elections, the freelow ofnformation. the ability for people to express themselves freely and associate freely. those are values and principles that we can speak to a moral clarity because they are our boundaries. when people oppressed them in tyrannical ways, we should speak to that. we have more clarity to do that. >> who have dealt with the tension between the -- >> they are universal values as well. >> the security issues that arise, what do you do about a state? you mentioned radical islam early on.

would you do to oppose those that oppose the united states and its interests? they have become what they believe they should be and pose a threat to the unit states. >> which state would you highlight as an example of that? >> you are speaking about a list of principles by which you would govern, and the tension between freedom and security is a perennial one. at what point do you draw the line. >> aut you meant a state that had a democratic resolved. the categories i put forward was this. there at the doorstep of freedom. we have these long-standing monarchies.

they have been somewhat or partially friendly to the invited states, but you can see the handwriting on the law -- on the wall. and maybe a year, 10 years, 20 or 30. there is a continuum to where they are and more shared power with theeople. we use the leverage that we have economically, socially, and beyond to move them as nstructively as possible to a better place of shared power with the people. live states that are directly threatening to the united states that included syria, iran, and hopefully not yet yemen. the need to be dealt with -- there recognize their great ally that shares the valley. we need to stand shoulder shoulder with them as we

confront in the embrace the challenges and opportunities of the region. these essence of your question is where is the dividing line between democracy and tyranny have you can't flip a switch overnight and to move his starkly to radical governments to democracy. but you can use what is available to try to pressure them, encourage them, inspire them to move down the continuum towards democracy. it doesn't happen overnight. look at serbia, look at kosovo and bosnia. these are 10, 20, multi decade projects. they take a sustained and persistent commitment in the country. reagan did great work in romania, poland, afghanistan part one.

not but always using explicit military interveion, but ove time, it changed the country. this starts with a president that is going to lend moral clarity, strength of vision, strength of values so that the individuals that are dreamers in those countries hear the voices and no aspiration only had to directionally that we stand with them. >> you've made a very him -- very interesting historical linkage early on. i am taking it as three examples of equivalent triumphs. defined the war on terror and what you would do in the next phase of that. >> this is not a known beginning

and end to this yet. we are accustomed to a mind-set where people might see a clear beginning and a clear and to the challenge and the need. it is likely going to be transnational. it is going to be multi year if not multi decade. it will be episodic. the threat will take different forms in different places at different times. it will be asymmetrical and it will be different as we although events of the historic examples that you have cited. we need to ready ourselves for that future. there is only one person that can educate and raise awareness and remind the american people about the importance of this cause and the environme and risks making sure that we remain

vigilant. the people that killed 3000 of our citizens of the timber a eleventh 2001 still exists. their mindset still exists. and as soon as they have the are opportunity to kill not 3000 and but 30 million or 300 million, they will try. this may not be just about an orderly and reasonable and successful draown of the troops in afghanistan. this is going to be about having the determination to see this threat, call it by name, identify it wherever it exists and defeat it before it manifest itself in a way that is threatening to the security interests of the united states. that will require persistence, diligence over a long and episodic. of time.

does n the direction this prident is headed in my view. that is not the direction that a good chunk of even the republican party seems to be headed. i take sharp issue with both. >> please state your name and affiliation, start here. >> think you for your remarks. i wonder if you can shed some light on your support for the idea, who are the change agents. if his no longer in power, would be acceptable to washington is the individual in whatever capital may be. or someone that can be someing else.

how'd you have visibility on a change agent that nobody in the country really has right now. the premise is how to guarantee something. the answer is that there is ultimately no guarantee in these uncertain situations. when you are navigating into certain situations. you have to make sure that your compass is set to true north. make sure you have a president th annunciated in articulate forcefully and repeatedly what the values and interests really are. what comes after hitler? what can happen after that? he was awful and needed to go. take libya as one example of many. each of these cultures are different with different histories.

they have to be done strategically, but ultimately won at a time. at least a significant chunk are western educated in the seemed to generally desire freedom or democracy. it will be in competition between the former and the latter? yes. assuming that he is going ago to try to maximize the odds of the folks that are favorable to our values prevail? yes. is there an absolute guarantee? it does notork like that. it does not mean that we retreat and ducked under the table.

this does not mean that we invade it militarily every country. there are a lot of levers that you can pull that will influence the course of these countries. can we guarantee the outcome? ho. but once the president of the united states says that he has got to go, you can't let him from his nose at the president of the united states and the free world. leaving him there and definitely is not an option. if someone would argue that we don't have a vital interest before, we have one now. one ofis main motivation is going to be retaliation, and guess who is going to be against. letting him linder indefinitely while the president brings his

hands about what to do that is not a good idea. he needs to go. >> as you look back, you think your foreign policy approach would have more in common with george h. w. bush or george w. bush? >> collected believe i would have my own foreign policy, and that it would reflect on the best of the successes of our country. and there are positive examples in both of those administrations from challenges as well obviously. i don't think it is one or the other. a thick there are strong and positive elements in both. these are complex issues and complex parts of the world have lots of nuance. to suggest a doctrine for t region that is cut her is under

utilization of our ability, capability, and are thghtfulness. there are elements of both. right're not in a primary now, are you? >> just to get away from the middle east for a moment, whatever policy toward north korea be different from what ever the policy is today? [laughter] >> north korea is one of the most concerning challenges that we face in the foreign-policy arena. i think that north korea will most likely best respond to a multifaceted approach, prominent when an important rule ha for china in that discussion. it is not the only lever, but it

is a mature and clever. the have control over whether china in search of more influence in that discussion, but we need them to be involved. we don't advocate, the fur, or 72 cut. you're dealing with a leadership structure that is fragile, uncertain, potential erratic, her unpredtable. again, when you're facing these difficult situations, we have to give back to articulating what we stand for and what we believe. first of all, articulate it, and cond of all, are there ways to influence in. the goal is not poland or afghanistan, but to the extent we have levers, whether the implicit or a necklace to try to change north korea in

internally, that is a good option for us. we are going to be helped in the region. we have people that are particularly connected to north korea. but thathe transition in south korea. great success has been made ther, a different approach. dallas in just the reagan gave a seat in a good blueprint about how to influence events in such a country they you're worried about. >>-with fox news. when you talk about gadhafi must go, it is easy to say, he has proven to be much more difficult. how would you deal with this with the more specificity of how you would get him to go.

and boots on the ground, special operations forces, more of the same? the nisei and hard to do if he decides he doesn't want to go. >> be consistent and clear about your expectations. egypt we have an 82-year-old that if it is a revolution or heart attack or something, was not long for that position. what was the plan between a 30 + year decatur and chaos. there wasn't one. he thought it was this kid. that wasn't going to work eith. as it unfolds in a number of the moment towards the end, we have me,ident biden -- excuse vice president biden say mubark

ak wasn't a dictator. the muslim brotherhood is a largely secular organization. really? don't worry, the situation in egypt is sble. as mentioned in my remarks, no, it wasn't. how was the colorful as we reach out the people on this tree. helen davis-some event in in egypt, or any of -- in europe. gibbs says mubarak must now go. and we mean yesterday. and then someone goes and whispers to a designee. in the early days, hours, and

weeks of this event, we had a very confused and uncoordinated and unclear and hesitant administration. clearly, he was a dictator not long for his position. leakey be in the business before chaos of trying to have a capacity in place or a better way forward for egypt. that took care of itself and terms of the events on the ground. we bettere helping out with others that are the business of trying to build democratic capacity in egypt. will maximize the likelihood that that will actually happen. to this day, and this administration until recently would not utter the words that he needs to go and he needs to kill him. they implied that there was

still high and for him to renew himself. the mean that we're going to use military force in syria? not necessarily. are there other things that we can do to try to effectuate change. this administration is reluctant to do it, doesn't see it, doesn't want to do it. doesn't leave how he has the leadership role in in. and this is not afghanistan, this is a relatively simple place of graphically. i'm not suggesting any boots on the ground, but the united states and its allies would have to go, he would be gone. and the ku said that essentlly, you have a certain number of days in the year affas in order. you can go the easy way or the hard way. ronald reagan tried to kill him in the 80's. he is a terrorist and now he is

an indicted war criminal. >> would you have tried to follow the war powers resolution in libya military action? ' reserve the prerogative and the war powers the close not apply. in the case that it might and out of courtesy, i would have more fully consulted with them because the case could have been presented successfully as a courtesy to congress, not necessarily as a legal obligation. i think he had a couple of leaders over for sandwiches. i think a strong case can be made on the merits that what we did in libya was the correct course. on march 7, they threatened a

no-fly zone and he was on the ropes. the rebels had the momentum. he was openly talking about leaving voluntarily. hadley seized the moment, we could have got him out without much fanfare. the president did for the better part of the month waiting for the united nations, regrouping, regaining momentum and taking back more than half of the country. and give us a more complicated situation than we now have. as it relates to the case that should have been made as a courtesy in a gesture of respect, i would have done that. i did not say that it was required by the war powers act. >> we have a question from penn

state. he said iraq was a shining example of the middle east. a number of experts tught that the majority was going to eliminate the minority are dropping them out of the country or worse. for whom is a rack a shining example? >> for those that like democracy, more open societies, increasing appreciation for democratic institutions and principles. is a racket guaranteed toe a shining example forever? though. is it better than it was in recent years? absolutely. this is on a continuing and got a moment in time. if you look around the middle east with the exception of israel and turkey in you're trying to rank haitians that are next on the progress meter in terms of movement towards the like, you will put iraq moving

in the right direction. in light of other challenges ar within iraq, we don't know the answer to that. in this moment of time, it can and has been made in a difficult region with the complex and seemingly insurmountable history. absolutely. >> i want to k a question that john asked you about states that democratically choose leaders who are opposed to american values in the conundrum. i assume that one of the reasons the obama hesitation -- edit illustration hesitated, they thought it could be more anti- american and anti-israel.

do you have a reason to think at that is wrong? or if it is correct, are you saying that the united states should be prepared to pay that strategic prize for the important moral gain of having a more democratic are you asserting that the elections in egypt were legitimate? >> it is broadly anti-american. for reasons having to deal with israel and other things, a democratic collection -- election will bring to power more that are anti-american than the autocratic regimes. it might be a price the united states has to pay in order to bring about a more democratic and middle east. a if you have reason to think that it is not such a price, or

is it is a price worth paying? >> you have to look at this over time. we have monarchies, for example, there was hoyle tolerated and supported -- and engaged over many years and many decades. the argument for not pressuring them to much for changis that they have accommodated us with respect to our security interests. it has been oversimplified, but i've been that is the essence of what you're describing. the next question is, how much longer in the world of social networking, instant media, is that sustainable? if you believe it is not in the intermediate and long-term sustainable, harley best served to least try to move those

countries and down the continuing tards a better future so the transition can be orderly, predictable, unlikely successful that have that erupt in a cataclysmic moment of revolution who, the debris and political debris for which is uncertain? as what i tried to describe in the remarks, and i hope you combat. the point wasn't to say to the third group marquise that we're going to demand or otherwise require you to quickly switch. what i am tryingo say if you think about, even in the realm of monarchies, have current middle eastern monarchies of the way to spain for the uk. over a reanable time, with our friendship, relationship,

leverage, and hopefully increasing the share value, then we move them on a continuum? it begins to convince e people of how there is no in an orderly fashion. it decreases the likelihood of a dramatic or catastrophic a moment for which outcome is uncertain. that is what i am trying to describe. keep in mind the failed states and those that have already gone through the revolution. >> you're not trying to send a message to elizabeth ii? [laughter] watch out. you're with us or against us. i knew 'd get kate middleton in here somehow. >> you imply in your remarks,

the answer to one of the more follow up questions that secretary clinton and the president were to slow to embrace in support the reform movement in egypt. what do you make of the argument that we were too quick as a country to abaon our ally of 35 years, and by not having what you just described, the orderly transition to have access opening dramatically and it could and threaten the state of israel. >> his days were numbered any way you cut them. caught in the revolution, elections, or through human life expectancy expands sometime in the next few years. the question wasn't whether he was going to go, the question

was what would happen once he went. it happened war suddenly because of the revolution. when you have 32 years' worth of his reign, featuring things like the 2010 parliamentary elections which are clearly still lend, which are unquestionably stolen by any reasonable and fair minded assessment. the united states of america says nothing and a pretty powerful signal. is that he only thing that led to the problems that mubarak had? no. was it the straw that broke the camel's back or the mass that got thrown into the kindling? -- match that got thrown into the kindling? maybe. it was 32 years worth of the vial of rights, secret police, still elections.

if you do that long enough, and eventually, you're going to have a problem. it is inevitable and undeniable. that same pattern will, for every one of those countries in the region and eventually. thequestion isn't what is outcome, the question is, can we make the outcome more orderly, predictable, stable, secure. more oriented towards the security interests of the united states. i don't accept the premise that one option was to lead him around. he wasn't around anyway you cut it. >> thank you for a thoughtful morning. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us at the table,

conn carroll of "the washington examiner," and jamelle bouie. thanks for coming by. guest: thank you. host: we just heard from viewers about the congress, about it being the least active in some time. what is your take on the current congress? guest: i would agree that congress has been a little bit inactive, but i think that is ok given that the 111th congress was one of the most active in recent htory. i'm paying less attention to the debt ceiling negotiations than to how congress and the senate is coming to agreement on it and reducing spending, cutting spending. any hoping there aren't

serious cuts to programs like medicaid, food stamps, income assistance to low-income people, simply for the sake that we cannot have deficit reduction on the backs of the poor and working class. that is not where the money is. it just seems cruel, in my view, to be cutting spending on those programs. host: conn carroll, the current congress? guest: jamelle is right. it is connected to the 111th congress. if you look at the first three months of the session, they were cleaning up what happened in the last congress. you have the first few months gone. immediately after that, there was the debt ceiling, which the 111th congss could have passed in december. instead, you have harry reid telling reporters that they want

to delay the debt ceiling vote in order to get republican buy- in. you have to keep choices by the 111 congress - key choices by the 111th contress to -- congress to kick the can down the road. guest: he definitely wants corporate-jet owners to pay. americans always say they want the rich to pay more, but they do not realize how much the rich arelready paying.the once you educate them and tell them how much taxes the rich e already paying, they say, oh, that's fair. host: can you see a point where taxes go up any time soon? guest: the only way i could see

that is the president obama, next year, manages to keep republicans and democrats from trying to extend the bush tax cuts to both high-income earners and also middle-class families. i think, given the size of the deficit and given the size of our debt problem, raising tes on the middle class by two percentage points is a smart and intelligent thing to do. the clinton economy was not disastrous for anyone. i do not imagine the clinton era tax rates would do anything terrible for our economy. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen. we are taking cls from democrats, republicans, and independents. we're talking about taxes, the debt ceiling, policy. you can talk about it with a two guests -- our two guests, conn carroll and jamelle bouie,

who is a riveting -- writing fellow for "the american prospect." one poine was made that -- point was made that suggestion, once they can get the debt ceiling taken care of, they could get something else done. what would be top of your list? guest: i really do not seem much getting done. they have other issues. one thing tt obama touched on was free trade agreements. he needs to satisfy his base. he needs to include about $1 billion in trade-adjusted assistance. i do not see a lot getting done, even if we get the debt ceiling out of the way. host: jamelle bouie? guest: i do not see a lot

getting done. i would like to see more stimulus put into the economy. the administration has been mulling over a tax cut for employees and employers, but studies suggest that would not do much for the economy. i would like to see a larger tax cut on the payroll side for employees. i really doubt that will actually make headway through congress before -- congress. host: do you sayhis debt ceiling thing going right to the brink on august 2 -- see this debt ceiling thing going right to the brink on august 2? guest: i do. adding that democrats are flirting with the 14th amendment of democratshat

are flirting with the 14th amendment option. i am curious to see what happens. host: conn carroll, august 2nd? guest: i think they will blow right past it. there are no legal grounds for the 14th amendment argument. i think the deadline will come around. obama will tell geithner to sell treasury bonds. there is no way anyone can stop them. host: pam, a republican, st. louis, missouir. missouri. caller: i thank god everyday for the people that the tea party elected. president obama, who likes to get up and say that millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share -- i do not think that somebody making

$250,000 is a millionaire or billionaire. it is not hard to get to that threshold if you have two people working in your family. i hear some much that we need to have safety nets for the poor. i agree with that for the truly poor. you have child and -- child earned income credits. the gal who accused the imf die of rape -- she had -- guy of rape, she had tax debts. host: what has en the impact to this point? what do you see in the months ahead on this fiscal issue? guest: the tea party has had a tremendous impact on the congress. you can look at the debates. i mentioned what harry reid said

about getting republican by-in -- buy-in on the budget and that is why they did not pass it on december -- in december. host: a big push from republicans on balanced-budget amendment. that issue has come back to the forefront in the gop terms. what is your reaction t that, eir current mantra? guest: i think the balanced budget amendment might be the worst idea -- would not say ever, but it is pretty terrible. putting a cap on total spending -- i think the house is saying 80% of gdp -- that would cripple government. it would require massive cuts to existing services, up to 70%, but it would -- in the ent of recession or war, it would sharply limit what the united

states could actually do. i do not imagine -- quick spending for military action -- i do not imagine that happening at all. requiring the 2/3 votes for tax increases would put this in the same situation as california is right now. they are virtually not capable of dealing with their budget problems because it requires a 2/3 majoty to pass a tax measure. that has crippled the government. host: conn carroll? guest: do i have to? [laughter] i am not against the balanced budget. i think it is a way to kick the can down the road. we have our real cap on what the government can spend with the debt limit -- a real cap on what

the government can spend with the debt limit. banner will have to start cutting spending by 44% -- geithner will have to start cutting spending by 44%. i think conservatives should make the case for cuts now. later, completely by itself, you can support a balanced budget, but, right now, i'd thk it is a distraction. caller: one of your guest made a statement about the wealthy paying the majority of the taxes. that is true, but they are also burning the majority of the income, the profits. if they are tired of paying more taxes than anyone else, it seems

the algorithm so that the financial structure so that the people are making most of the income. thereby, they will pay the majority of the taxes. that is a simple solution. host: on the republican line, susan from new hampshire. susan, turn down the sound on your set. caller: i cannot understand you. host: if you can turn the sound down, we can hear you lot better. hang on for a second and we will come back to you. we will go to north carlotta -- caller: the republicans leave out the whole truth.

like medicare being a cause of the dead. the whole truth is that it is the entire health consider -- health care system that is causing this to be so expensive. medicare is only a part of that. it is actually more efficient than the whole system. it will lead the people of united states with the most expensive health-care system in the world. guest: medicare is the driving factor in the dead. everyone on both sides admits that. all whole premise of a obamacare is that we will drive down spending for the rest of the system. there is an argument on both sides on how medicare shapes and drives the medicarcosts. the only question is how that

we're going to do about it and change the medicare system? democrats want to do it through a 15-member panel and paul ryan wants to do it through a more free choice system. we're going have to change the health spending and the only question is how we do it. host: jamelle bouie? sure it's not accurate to say that. the paul ryan plan would not serve double as -- voucherize health care for seniors.

while there are 50 people that are run elected, they are confirmed by the senate, so it is as democratic as the federal judiciary. i do not think that medicare is the chief driver of the dead, and cutting medicare spending may not reduce the overall cut. host: let's go back to susan. we are glad that you held on. they keep returning your sat down. what is your comment or question? caller: it is actually of response regarding the balanced budget amendment in its potential for our nation. jamell mentioned it would be the worst thing possible, but this is a paradox.

how was it that you and i must live within our budget, our states and towns and municipalities must run with a budget, and it has been over 700 days since the senate has proposed a budget? how could that be the most -- the worst possible thing to face our nation? if we must, why must not the federal government do the same? guest: adding a budget is not as terrible thing. i think the federal budget should have budget passed last year. t the balanced budget amendment limits at the programs drastically. unlike household or a state, the federagovernment has obligations and one of those is improving the economy during recession and paid for wars and wars actions like that.

pay for infrastructe, a whole gamut of things that families do not have to deal with. that is why requiring a balanced budget is a bad thing to do. and individuals do do simil things when you pay for a car for your child, you take out of debt. it is for future pay off and that is what the federal government often does. the amendment would drastic what we as a country can do. host: our guests are with us for 25 more minutes. ey are jamelle bouie and conn carroll. i wanted to bring in some presidential politics. a congressman named thaddeus the

cotter -- mccotter has announced. but what will they bring to the race? guest: he is a small government conservative from michigan. he has some credibility but he has some black marks on his resume. he supported the automobile belau. talking to jamelle earlier, i don't expect what boaters' he expects to get. i do not know is marketed the republican primary. most analysts a mystified as to why he is in the race. why not another? guest: i am the same way. i am not sure which republican voters mccotter is aiming for.

they are covered by herman cain and to some extent michele bachmann. i have a hard time seeing how he succeeds. host: as we talk about who is running, there is a piece about who is not running. where are the govnors? haley barbour was once considering running. he decided not to. among the many surprises in the gop race, the virtual silence of the governors. chief executives have played no role in shaping the race, either through nominees for through their powers of endorsement.

where are the governors? guest: i was devastated when tch daniels did not get into the race. i thought he had a wonderful resume. he had everything it took to raise a lot of people. after that happened and daniels ducked out a lot. they are trying a fall in love with somebody. they're looking to mitt romney, in no one is capturing them. host: they may be looking at governor perry. he has been waiting for the legislative session to end. here is a headline. he could enter the presidential

race but are of voters ready for another governor from texas? guest: i agree with the premise. i don't know if people are ready for another cowboyish the winner from texas. i think he would meet some needs and cause some problems for michele bachmann in iowa. he has very strong ties to the evangelical community. he would definitely be a force if he entered. host: jamelle bouie, which of these candidates might get to the white house? guest: mitt romney and jon huntsman, because they are the moderates in the field. mitt romney was a good governor of massachusetts. i actually think that on the whole, anyone of the plausible

candidates is a real threat to the white house. unemployment is near 9%, job growth is slow, income growth is slow. the economic fundamentals shows that the white house should be worried about winning reelection next year. regardless of who is the gop nominee. host: there is a story in the politico that herman cain's top staff in iowa has resigned. guest: he also lost his new hampshire staff so that is a trend. her manner crane only reported $2.5 million raise, including a lot of seed money from his own personal fortune. the operative said he had hired,

good people that know the system, looked at his campaign and decided that this was no longer of that they wanted to make. guest: i agree herman cain was a boutique candidate. he impressed a lot of people but when push came to shove, no one wanted devoted -- wanted to vote for him. host: carolyn sacramento, thank you for waiting. caller: what you're gas said about being kroll, taking away from medicare and medicaid, i happen to be a severely disabled 68-year-old woman buried my husband in blind. we are cut $100 on our ssi. took away our dental and eye care.

now the teeth are calling out. ey called the golden years. i'm also upset with governor brown because he did another cut on our ssi. hate the way they keep bringin up the cut medicare and make it a state bank. it is not the poor people possible. these rich people in congress making the rules, it is their fault. picking on people that are disabled, about the middle of the month they are out of food, and it just incenses me that they cannot get it together. host: as go to new york. gerald is an independent. caller: under the 14th amendment, the president has the right to see to it that the bills of the government are paid. we already ran up the debt so we need to pay the bills. i don't underand why he does not just say, not paying the

bill is a car and present danger to the public order. therefore, i am going to direct secretary geithner to pay the bills. if congress does not agree, they can sue me. congress would be the ones with the legal standing to go to the court. to say that he cant do that. they are not going to do that because the democrats control the senate. i just do not see why he does not cut the whole debate off and say that we do need to cut the deficit, but let's negotiate that. that has nothing to do with paying our bills. host: we talked earlier about blowing past the august 2 deadline. guest: there is no easy way to stop obama if he told geithner

to drop the bomb. there is some special standing granted to members of congrs, including the debt limit. someone would have to show actual harm related to the decision. there are some members of congress, if someone invested in a bond fund tt shorted u.s. treasury funds and they lost money becauseheir bonds ended up doing well, that person could show harbored we know from earlier reporting that eric cantor fits that description. a treasury employed part of the selling of treasury bonds, he could show harm. but it could not just be some general person who said, this trillion dollar debt somehow hurts the economy and therefore affects my life. it cannot be general harm. it has to be someone more

specific. it would be hard to find someone like that. i mentioned eric cantor, but it would be hard for him to sue the government because i'd bet against the economy. you cannot make that argument politically. i think it will be very difficult for opponents of the so-called 14th amendment option to challenge it in court. guest: i cannot i imagine other than eric cantor and i will look terribly politically to go out and say that, i am losing money because the economy is not crashing, to sue the obama administration. when it comes to standing, i would very much prefer a fix on the debt ceiling. but if push comes to shove, we need to pay our financial

obligations. this is the spending that we have already done. this is moneye have spent out of our pocket. it would be devastating to the market. host: we want to get your brief take on minnesota. they are in a small government shutdown right now. barry relevant to what we're talking about. shutdown cost will bring sticker shock. there is a camping ground seen here. there isccessibility of the public lands there. can anything good come from a situation like minnesota? guest: i am not sure that it can. i think the republicans entertained the option and i do

not know what lesson that would drop from minnesota. i think the clear lesson for all of us is that there are very few lines of commonality going down to the states, and that this is largely the product of a right-wing republican party that has become radicalized, that has taken its anti-government ito's not to the extreme yet, but is getting there. guest: i think that this will be an instructive situation. anytime you get more data points in to the decision makers, it helps them make better decisions. you can see what happens when the government shuts down. you will have some type of

resolution before august 2. i think that will help better inform the decision makers here. whatever happens in minnesota will affect washington. host: in kentucky, thank you for waiting, room -- robert on the republican line. caller: i have a comment for the panelists and also for c-span. all wanted to get feedback from you gentleman on the subject of tax increases or corporate jets. i view it as throwing a pebble at a pon corporations will not just sit down and take that. someone is going to lose their job. it takes people to fuel these jets, to do repairs and

corporations arefraid that they're going to have to pay more in taxes in an economy -- i just see a lot more people losing their jobs. we already have 25 million people unemployed. i think that is enough. i think we have a left wing nut in the white house, and in the congress, and she is not doing us any favors. i also want to comment that as far as c-span is concerned, you take in quotes from the "new york times." i alsoee that out to zero is on your news program. -- al jazeera is on the news program. as an american, i take offense to that. i just wish that c-span would

give with the 21st century. host: who would you like to see us quote? caller: the drudge report, the blaze. "than your time" is getting into a whole but you reported like it is serious journalism. host: talking about some of the tax situations out there. guest: you should read the "washington examiner." but on the jets, it is just class warfare. we're talking about $10 billion over 10 years.

over that period, the government will spend $40 trillion. you do the same thing with this court -- corporate jet thi. this class warfare rhetoric, he could raise revenues if the cut tax breaks across t board and lowered rates. you would get more revenues if you cut government loopholes and lower the rates. but obama cannot do that. guest: i am not sure if president obama's class warfare rhetoric, as you call it, is in the way of the deal. i think the republican party insistence that we cut spending for everybody but the rates is keeping the federal government

from cutting a deal. he is right to say that the private jets would be a drop in the bucket. it is virtually no money being saved. and also serious tax reform, cutting loopholes, would raise a lot of revenue. taxes are historic plea low. getting rid of loopholes is only one aspectemove back to something that is normal. if the obama administration is serious about tax reform, i would agree that corporate tax reform that involved cutting out loopholes in lowering rates would be a good idea, seeing as how we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, even if they are not paying that

tax rate. host: sally, a democrat, good morning. caller: i know everyone is talking about jobs, but i want to talk about the abortion rights deal, and the gop will and the government cutting funds for planned parenthood. there are federal laws already were no federal funds are allowed for abortion funding. people go to planned parenthood would do not have insurance. they need to think about what is going on with the states with that. if they got -- if the gop focused on the jobs the way that they focus on abortion,

everybody would have a job. guest: they could not do an absolute ban. so you see that on the state level, more regulations and taxes to make it harder and harder. it has become successful. there was a report on how the abortion rate is dropping. host: jamelle bouie, should we kill gaddafi? th is the headline of this opinion piece. he writes that if t u.s. government -- is the u.s. government tried to kill gadda fi?

what is your take on the action in libya? guest: i was skeptical when it commenced. i think that when we are fighting two for and now, we should not get into the third. as a progress, i have not seen a reason to revise the initial opinion. the administration does not seem to know what it is doing in libya. our goals are not particularly clear. and the fce of not calling it it is frustrating.

i am willing to admit the limits and a whole host of areas. but when we voted for obama, we expect a change from the previous administration's policies, not going to war on shaky -- not shaky claims, but shaky goals. host: the senate has canceled its july 4 break to keep work going on the debt ceiling talks. but we also expect them to take up the issue o libya this coming week. you can watch said on c-span2. conn carroll, what is your take? guest: it is the same deal with that chrysler bankruptcy and the debt limit. everyone is in agreement tha obama is in violation of the war powers act.

his top lawyers have said the same thing. but he says he is not. we're going to go ahead and do it. just like the debt ceiling, no one has the legal standing to stop him. this is just his m.o. host: ian, an independent, what is on your mind? caller: i have a comment and a question. i have to say, i am 35 years old and i was a bker at morgan stanley and understand the econics and was a financial advisor. and i have never seen so much attacks on this president who is doing so many things on so many different fronts with so many issues going on in the world, both united states as a competitive nation as well as all the wars that were handed to

him. for him to make a comment about corporate jets where i would say 90% if not more of the components are made in china through the large corporations could thenontain -- campaign and contributed to congressman on both sides of the aisle, whether democrat or republican, i think the majority of united states does not care. they want to see the direction that this country is going and what we are doing about it to come a competitive nation ain. from aet's hear republican in south carolina. caller: i am concerned that congress in general, republican and democrat, are not doing anythi constructive.

all they are doing is acting like kids on a playground. i am not goi to do this, i am not going to do this. what they need to do is cut the budget and raise revenues. if i had a sudden expense that i do not have the money for, i have to go out and get another job or some other form of been come to pay for it. and that is what the government needs to do. reduce spendin and increase revenue. get the economy going. host: i want to get back the foreign policy. afghanistan, the recent decision regarding the troops, conn carroll, how you see how that will play out? guest: wow. let me switch to afghanistan.

they will start drawing down troops, 10,000 by the end of this year. it depends on what happens on the ground. i say that but it is not really true. if you look at theate by which he will drive down the rest of the troops come in september 2012, that is not a date created by the military or by the reality of the fighting in afghanistan. that is a purely political date. it is dictated by politics in this country. what happens in afghanistan is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what obama appeals will be best for his reelection campaign. guest: when it comes down to the commander in chief, he is the one that dictates orders for the military. we have been in afghanistan for almost a decade and next year will be over a decade.

when it comes down to it, if president obama says that we need to be out of there now, regardless of what is going on on the ground, that is totally acceptable there will never be of point where afghanistan is where we wanted to be. -- want it to be. i think he has done the responsible thing and left. host: last call for our round table. caller: i have two comments. the gop has had one agenda only since 2009 -- to defeat president obama in 2020. even if it means bringing thought only the coury but rhaps the world to financial

disaster. my second comment is regarding the corporate jets. $2 billion here and $2 billion there, it had sought ultimately. -- it adds up ultimately. our ideology straight. guest: i really hope the gop has obama out by 2020. but on the jets, when you talk about the money we are decades past that and we're now talking about trillions. to be in dollars just a drop in the bucket. host: our last call is an independent. caller: u.s. companies pay the

highest tax rates in the wor, but that is not true. the japanese companies pay higher rates. and the actual rates paid by u.s. companies are very much lower than the nominal rate. and if i may come up i wanted to you about a dinner party that we were invited to a couple of weeks ago. there were seven couples there, the poorest adding $16 million in net worth, and our host for up to $500 million. our hosts asked us to set up identified our politics. two democrats, three independents, one republican, and one conservative. and then they asked if they would approve or disapprove of paying higher at taxes. everyone approved of paying higher federal taxes except for

the one conservative. the constant reiteration that wealthy people are somehow extraordinarily irresponsible seems to be not to be entirely true. there are lots and lots of relatively wealthy people who understand that the country needs more revenue and are prepared to help in that regard. make you very much for c-span. host: final thoughts starting with jamelle bouie. guest: obviously the economy is not doing well. unemploymentnd numbers, i do not eect them to be different from a. may. not only is that terrible for the unemployed people, the long- term unemployed, b it is bad news for the white house.

presidents who are running during periods of economic downturn do not win reelection. i think a more constructive comparison is george h.w. bush, a president who became very popular through foreign-policy actions but lost the election due to the economy. i think that the republicans can unify next year and put forward someone who is kind of credible on the economy, obama could lose. guest: you had george bush to cut a deal in the 1990's to raise taxes and the base soured on him. but he was very popular u.n. xed, weak democratic field.

and people forget this but bill clinton did not get in until october 1991. this is just my way of saying that there is still time for paul ryan to get in after the budget deal and the debt limit is done. the people in the movement cannot wait to start working for you. host

..

>> latin america is seeing an expansion. this process is bringing greater political stability. between 1998 and 2005, eight elected presidents were ousted before the end of that term. since then, this has happened in only one case in honduras. but clearly the region's democracies still face many difficulties. sustaining socioeconomic progress and generating equality of opportunity

requires raising rates of productivity group and improving the poor quality of education. crime and citizen insecurity are now the most serious public concerns in the region having displaced economic worries. outside conventional war zones, latin america is the most violent region on earth. criminal organizations challenge the writh of the state. the previous lens of violent scrime both consequence and cause of the relative weakness of the rule of law in many latin american countries. despite some attempts at reform, judiciaries remain ineffective and sometimes corrupt. and the same goes for police forces and prisons are all too often overcrowded, violent spaces. lastly in a handful of countries, the producties of democracy has been undermined. to widely varying degrees elected leaders in venezuelan, nicaragua, he can i can't do and argentina hallowed out democracy and threatening civil

and political sfreedyoms in the private sector. and one might add that organized crime faces similar threats in mexico and parts of central america. for the most parted, autodemocrats have been able to concentrate power because they are popular, because they have a rapport with voters who had previously felt unrepresented. the will he mitt massey of these leaders derise from the ballot box. that is their achilles' heel. even if president chavez is restored to vigorous health in venezuela, the opposition has a good chance of winning next year's presidential election. as a continental project, it's been in retreat for several years. victory in the idea lodges call conflict of the past decade that have roughered to as the battle for latin america's soul elsewhere has gone to the democratic reformers such as brazil. that is because cavismo has

failed. venezuela has lagged others in the past two years, and other countries are overhauling it in social indicators. it is symptomatic that peru's president be a sympathizer 6 brazil's policies. mr. chairman, the united states still enjoys considerable influence in latin america. in my opinion, it can best deploy it by supporting the governments in the region that are its friends that show respect for evered practice of democracy. an obvious example would be the swift approval of the free trade agreement with colombia. the most effective means of weakening elected autocracy, in my view, multilateral regional demrokecy, working with partner governments in the region, and zifing a civil society organizations such as those that are standing up for

political freedom as cross the region. thank you very much. look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. senator, it's an honor to be here. in my remarks, i concentrate on a point that my colleague, michael reid, just made that most latin americans today live under constitutional democratic government. that is why i spend some time on my written next brazil and mexico because that is where most latin americans live. i was delighted to hear senator rubio's earlier comment considering peru because that is, in fact, how my testimony begins. i luck at the example of brazil's 2002 presidential election to indicate very much the key points as senator rubio emphasized, the key role of constitutional transfer of power from government to

opposition, shift of the political views of the candidate who wins the presidency, lula, in significant ways departing from his past, a candidate who had been described adds a rebel rouser and radical earlier in the past. the fundamental continuity between the policies, economic and social policies, of the outgoing government and the incoming government. and the themes determined as you emphasized of a vigorous civil society. in your previous questioning, both of you, secretary jacobson, you also asked about international factors. brazil's 2002 presidential election is is a very good example of the benign role of the international community including the u.s. government at the time. because lula was perceived as a radical rebel rouser, there was panic in international bond markets and the change rate. it was the timely and effective intervention of the u.s. government and the bush administration at the time that

helped to stabilize those economic circumstances, enyable brazil to have a good election, and surprising as it may seem for a conservative republican u.s. president and a self-professed democratic socialist in brazil to have a good partser inship in the years to come. and it is in that context that i look only with hope -- admittedly but hope nevertheless -- at the prufeage election where the president-elect has indicated similar lay a shift of views, ine imported brazilian advisors to try to make this more credible. but baring in mind as well that lula and mala are not the same. lula never led a military rebelen. lula had never associated his own views with thoys of hugo chavez and -- again as my colleague michael reid indicated. i pay attention to the mexico 2000 election for other reasons. the role of the mazz media that

interests do and this committee, the role of the electoral institution that is equally crucial, the role of the president, and the political parties at the time. but, again, let me highlight why i do so. on the opposition side, which is one of the lessons i draw from venezuela. it was essential for the long-running opposition party, to believe that it could win. and therefore not to shrink away from contesting elections. not doing what the venezuelan opposition did in december 2005 to abstain and enable chavez's political forces to control a receipt in the national parliament. to believe that could you win also means that you believe can you challenge electoral fraud admittedly with cooperation with others, which is the next point that i want to make. the mexico 2000 presidential election was one of many where

international and domestic election observers were orn. it included the n.d.i., the i.r.i. we were chatting before about that election. and it is one of the significant ways in which as we look ahead in latin american elections, there is an important role for the international community. on the international side, the clinton administration effectively signaled, along with wall street and other financial markets that the key was a good election not for candidate a or canned bait d to win it. that was effect lively communicated. simply want to, then, underline my agreement with that you have indicated with regard to venezuela. the issues there are not just whether one in general agrees or disagrees with hugo chavez but the politicization of the electoral institutions, the

aggressive intimidation of the president, including the shutdown independent mass media organizations, the aggressive undercutting of the rights of civil society, both under international human rights conventions and venezuela's own constitution, the intimidation of opposition political leaders including potential presidential candidates. and the abuse of executive crees. it is, as you noted, about to be the 10th anniversary of the interamerican democratic charter it remains a viable, valid, and, i hope, more effective entity. difficult as it is, appropriate as it is, to coordinate u.s. policies and the work of our allies and friends through a multilateral institution that is, at times, cumbersome. but it is the most effective path that we have. thank you. >> thank you.

>> mr. chairman, ranking member rubio, thank you for the opportunity to present some observations from the perspective of a non-governmental organization involved in democracy promotion. the international republican institute instituted programs in latin america for more than 25 years. we currently are in 11 countries. with this year representing the 10th anniversary of the interamerican democratic charter, this hearing provide as a useful reminder that u.s. interests are fundamentally connected to the state of democracy in the americas. let me join the chorus in terms of the good news. over the past 30 years we have witnessed throughout the region the broad acceptance of elections and other democratic practicings as the means to select leaders and legitimize governmental authority. the fact is that more of the region's citizens are, today, participating in the political and economic decision making of the respected countries than ever before. now, this is not to argue that some form of democratic perfection has dissended upon

the hemisphere. rather, it is to note that the acceptance of democratic practices are now a foundation of citizen expectations throughout the region regardless whether individual leaders genuinely support or fully implement such practices. there are exceptions and challenges to this general positive growth of democracy. uncontrolled crime, populism woix i have to as the two most significant challenges. the role of constitutional order and the rule of law are fundamental to a country's democratic health. but these terms can also be misleading as in the case of cuba, as you two gentlemen have made reference. that nation has a constitutional order en-- and a body of laws yet remains the democratic outlier in the hem spheres. the deepening of democracy requires a constitutional order that protects the rights of individuals, provides for the responsible division of governmental authority, and promotes respect for the rule

of law. however, over the past decade we have seen instance where's constitutional changes have undermined democratic institutions and, instead, concentrated power in the single office or person. constitutional order like the rule of law should be neutral not an enshrinement of any political tendency it should include constraints on governmental action not just limit the range of citizen behavior. as for the rule of law, too many countries still suffer from an arbitrary application of the law, not from a lack of laws. in some instances the law is dysfunctional by design. generally by the design of a small segment of the population who seeks to empower and enrich itself at the expense of others. this, i think is at the core of authoritarian populism. institutions including civil society structures and a tax on journalists and a free media also contributed to a situation

of democratic uncertainty. regardless of the past reasons for this state of affairs, democratic practice remains most successful where there are competing centers of governmental authority, where civil society has an opportunity to meaningfully engage its decision makers, and where the media can vigorously report on the actions of those in office. as we've discussed here earlier, today's venezuela is the region's poster country for the challenges that confront the consolidation of a democratic society. while mr. chavez's rise to power 12 years ago represented popular case prolve of government run by wealthy elites, his government, however, has manipulated an independent judicial system, eliminated a sense of predictable rule of law, and eviscerated other independent bodies. worrisome is that we have seen elements of this model copied in bolivia, ecuador, and

nicaragua. and we share the question with what happened on peru. by comparison, mrs. colombia, where a popular president with an 80% approval rating stepped down when a proposed third term in office was deemed unconstitutional by an independent judicial body. a free, competitive election chose his successor. democracy is about more than a leader's approval rating. and arebound yea understood that and -- uribe understood that. in closing, we should keep in mind that many in hemisphere want our help in building democratic institutions and practices. such assistance is not a matter of imposing u.s. structures and values. each country that to develop its own path. however, as partners in this experiment called democracy, we can and should respond to those seeking to learn from others' experiences and not only from the north american experience. more importantly, in my view, by supporting those who favor freedom and democracy, we are

contributing to the betterment of all who live in this hemisphere. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, all, for a very insightful testimony. let me start off by asking -- taking off where you just finished your statement flrks fiske and to the entire panel. so, what is the appropriate role for the united states, a desirable role for the united states in the context of helping civil society further promote democracy where it is not as vibrant or strengthen it where it is? if i were to ask each of you what are the top two or three things the united states should do, what would your answer be? dr. dominguez? >> one effective instrument -- and it speaks to senator rubio's question of secretary jacobson, is election observation.

it is a set of procedures, a set of instruments that has developed now over a period of time. it can be effective. it has been effective in a number of entities. some of it may be done by any civil society organization in various countries, including the executes. but some of it, which i commend to both of you is the work that i.r.i. and n.d.i. have done over time so that there's sort of a specific issue. my own personal experience with that working with n.d.i. and i.r.i. has been very rewarding and i believe effective. but let me give you a different example altogether. it may not work, but just to think out loud. so, beginning now some years ago, the state in mexico led the way.

other entities in mexico elsewhere led the way, to try to harness some of the remittances from mexican citizens living in the united states not just to help individual family members but to help to develop social objectives, community objectives, small civil sewite groups at the local level. and it was developed eventually in what is often called three for one funding. and so for every dollar who comes from a mexican in the united states to a family in a local community, local, state, and federal entities in mexico contribute a dollar. and the question is whether some of that could be augment order facilitated through features of chartable size at the u.s. tax code to facilitate and to stimulate those kinds of commitments where the bulk of resources would come not from

the u.s. taxpayer but from individual citizens who volunteer yill -- voluntarily make these efforts, and from governments themselves. this is harnessing, call it transflational civil society, but for the purpose of assisting knows particular communities. >> mr. reid? >> mr. senator, i say, firstly, it's important to avoid a kind of crude attempt at promoting regime change. i'm struck from outside or exporting democracy from outside. i'm struck by the kind of broad consensus that i think exists here today, that that is not the way forward i think that's good. secondly, i would say, a lot of this work inevitably falls not to the united states government but to other institutions in the -- in american society, particularly foundations, n.g.o.'s. i do think that supporting

media freedom, pressure groups and watch dogs throughout the hemisphere is absolutely vital. they do an important job. and the more of that work that is done, the better. i think senator rubio, if i remember rightly, mentioned the idea of the united states supporting parliamentary visits by, for example, venezuelan parliamentarians to other morrow bust democracies in latin america that strikes me as important. because i think the peer pressure at the end of the day, taking the peers of venezuela to be the other latin american countries, i think is important. and specifically -- there is a specific event scheduled, the presidential election in

venezuela, which is a supreme importance that it should be as free and fair as possible. i think election observation may be difficult it can only be achieved through multilateral agreement. i would note that i think there's been no conclusive proof up until now that the electoral -- the actual counting or voting has not been accurate in venezuela. and it's important to mobilize as much pressure as possible to ensure that that vote is free and fair. >> you mentioned in the very beginning that regime change -- surely you don't suggest that assistance to civil society to promote greater democracy, freedom of the press, rights to organize is regime change. >> i didn't mean -- of course i didn't think that's the case. think there's a distinction. but i think in the past some

elements within venezuela, for example, attempted unconstitutional regime change. and while they not, i don't think there's any proof they got support from the administration. they got support from political sectors here. >> mr. fiske -- fisk, you have had i.r.i.'s, a robust cuba program for many years supporting civil society and doing unique polling on the views of cubans on a report is of issues. what do you think has worked? what can we do in places like cuba to help promote civil society and disseminate independent voices both in and off the island? >> mr. chairman, i, first of all, believe the program that have been implemented while they've had their bumps in the road and implementation overall

have -- have been able to overcome a lot of the challenges presented by the cuban regime specifically. in terms of continuing to make sure that we in terms of the n.g.o. world, get information to the island that we try to find opportunities to get cubans' skills, in terms of make the concepts of democracy and also some basic organizational skills. some cases we're starting with the very, very basics. and in some cases it's pens and paper. there's a lot of excitement about social media. that's also in facet of what the i.r.i. does. but the think the fundamentals are there the problem that we always run into is the fact that the regime has a very effective security apparatus. and the other issue we have, frankly in a forum like this is when we talk about it it potentially calls attention tore things or to people. and you were right earlier to note that a lot of these individuals have to make a very tough decision. a u.s. n.g.o. can always get up and leave a place.

cuba is even tougher than others. think that in terms of the fundamentals of the u.s. program as it exists, i think it's there. from our vantage point -- of course, we always see opportunities for more. but it is a case in which i think the from -- from our perspective, committees should be assured that there are things in motion. there are ways to get these skills to people on the island. >> senator rubio? >> thank you. thank you to the panel. here's what i'd like to do. kind of make a brief statement on my view, something that's been on my mind for a while. and then get your impressions, your agreement, your disagreement, both. i prefer your agreement, but your honest assessment. first of all, you have governments. and i use cuba asen example that are not legitimate in essence, they do not have the consent of the of the people that they govern. the only reason they are in charge is because you don't agree with them, they hit you in the head, puts you in jail, exile you, torment you and your families. you have no economic

opportunities notice country in general and especially if you don't agree with the government, they're illegitimate because they do not agree with the con sent of the government. that's win thing. i think it's very clear in my opinion where the united states should be. we talked the -- the word regime change was used. i say anywhere in the world where there's a legitimate government, the u.s. should be on the side of the people. i think cuba is a prime example. then you have a second issue. nation that have democratic institutions but perhaps leaders that are trying to undermine the democratic institutions or policy that we don't like. and that's really the one i want to focus on right now. we're very proud of our republic in the united states, and rightfully so. but it hasn't been one throughout its history without challenges. we've had a civil war, a hundred some-odd years ago over issue that faced our country. but one of the things that makes us unique sattability to take on very difficult,

divisive issues within the context. republic. richard nixon resigned. but imagine if he had ordered the army to march on the capitol and prevented his impeachment if it was headed in that direction. in my own home state in 2000 we have we had a very close election that ultimately decided the election in the presidency of the united states. but when the supreme court ruled, vice president gore accepted it and moved on. imagine a different scenario. it's far-fetched for to us think, but it happens around the world. right? the supreme court rules a certain way, the president or whoever is in charge, orders the army into the street or the cancellation or what have you, the intimidation of the supreme court on how to rule so those institutions by and large, even though we have very heated disagreements in the united states haval you lod us over time to solve some very contentious issues that other countries have it h to fight wars over and have set these nations back. i was moved, reading last night the written testimony of mr. demringyezz, you talked about the election in mexico and how it was reported by the voting

council and immediately the cameras cut to the president. and then it cut to the party that had been in charge forever and a day and how they had to accept it. and people started singing the national anthem in mexico, a pivotal moment. imagine how worse off mexico would be today facing the challenges it face it's it didn't have the democratic institution fortified by these elections where power changes hands. people are unhappy, but they agree with it. so here's our challenge from time to time throughout the region there are going to be elections. and the american who wins may be somebody whose policies we don't like. not policies to undermine the institutions, just their policies. we may not like their rhetoric. and we may not lining some of the things they've said in the past or promised to do in the future. but they won an election. so the challenge there for us -- and liked your inputted on it -- is you know, how would you advise on foreign policy perspective the kinds of things we can do to separate -- and maybe there is no concrete steps you can take. but how do we separate those two between the fact that it's

not that we don't like hugo chavez's policies, for example. it's that in addition tock a danger to his neighbors, an embarrassment to his people and country and a guy holding his country back, he also attempts to undermine democratic institutions. maybe not by rigging vets bout by intimidating people, by not creating a fair playing field where both messages can get out and convenient zailans can make an informed decision. that's different from somebody saying things we don't like but ultimately is governing in anesquist way. -- an effective way. what is your suggestion to reach that level public policy maturity where we can distinguish between the election of someone who we don't like what they stand for but they got legitimately elected and then use that position to undermine democratic institution? we should be against that. but ultimately, you know, we've got to deal with folks that are elected whose policies we may not like at a given moment.

>> senator, that was a very lucid exposition of the issues. i think the answers are not easy. i think it's important to say that -- it's a learning process for the societies themselves. that was really what i was trying to get at by suggesting that attempt of regime change from outside would not be effective or helpful. i think in the case of venezuela, i'm sure all of us appall the ways in which the instuses -- institutions had representative democracy have been weakened in venezuela. as you have applied -- implied, thabs so far been done with the consent of the majority of the people. and the narrative that the

president that has sold to the people has that -- problems have been as a result of outside interventions. we might rationaly consider that to be effective. in other words, i think -- outside influence is important. but it's important at particular moments. it's likely to have much more leverage and impact at a moment when the society itself is changing its mind, changing its political mind >> think that process is underway in venezuela. it's not complete yet. i think it's starting in bolivia and in ecuador. i think nicaragua has s is a slight index case in that -- slight index case in that for an opposition to win an

election being you have to a reasonably coherent and plausible opposition and a plausible candidate. and i don't think that's the case in nicaragua. so while i think one has to wait -- weight the democratic war through civil society, support civil society and institutions, i think one also has to pick one's battles to an extent. >> one theme that has come out in both your questions and some of the comments is an important element. and all of these key political issues that is very difficult to shape, it's easier to observe but more difficult to shape. it's statesmanship. so dan fisk referred to the president of the president who has not -- accepted the decision of the constitutional court and stepped down.

senator rubio just referred to the mexico 2000 election where the president, first time ever, congratulated his opponent and presided over a peaceful transition. if i knew more how we could fashion this, i feel much more confident about answering your question. but i want to begin with a sense of humility that cannot fully address it, precisely because that element, statesmanship is important. so a couple of examples. the brazil 2002 presidential election. i could imagine there would be many people in the city of washington at the time who were very nervous just as there were many brazilians at the time that lula might be elected president of brazil. that's why it was difficult. and it worked. it worked because there was the willingness to give this political process a chance to see how lula would govern.

and to the great credit not only of president lula and brazilians in the first instance but to many others, including the bush administration at the time. i have no idea what your views were, but you were there at the time. this worked. very successfully. it really is one of the accomplishments of which brazilians but also the international community should be proud. that's the question about thinking about peru today. i don't find myself, in general, in sympathy with the president-elect's views. certainly not the early version but even the more current versions. but i want to give him the same benefit of the doubt that brazilians gave to lula, that the international community gave in the case. it's probably worth remembering, last comment on hugo chavez. when chavez was first elected president of venezuela, did he

not run on the platform that he has immeanted. he was, as noted, very much in opposition to the way venezuela had been governed. he was sort of challenging both political parties and long entrenched elites. but he did not articulate at the time that he would be undertaking the kinds of policies that have undermined the media that have undermined journalists at civil society. and the difficulty, the real serious difficulty both for the venezuelan opposition and for anybody else is that this chazzest process has occurred very, very gradually. it was not a military coup. it was autocracy drop by drop. it's much more difficult to respond to the gradual installation of autocratic practices. and we have -- we collectively,

venezuelans or those of us who may support them outside of venezuela, have not done a very good job at supporting a democratic process there. it's very hard to do when it happens little step by little step. >> if the committee will indulge me in stepping out of my i.r.i. role and taking on kind some of experiences, senator, i think a number of us who served in positions at various times -- whether it was academically or in the government, specifically struggled with exactly the question that you presented. if someone has an answer that's a definitive one, it would be useful to know. picking up on jorge's comment, though, your counterpart does make a difference. president bush took the calculated risk in the mind of the bush administration to reach out to president-elect lula and then president lula. and it was more than a trust but various tied. you had two leaders who understood that their national interest -- or that they had

more in common and their national interests shared more than separated us. that is to both presidents' credit. i'm personally pleased that president obama has continued that path in terms of u.s.-brazilian relationships. but it is more than a trust but verified circumstance. mr. chavez did not come into the office with the intent to be our friends or to get along with us. i think he had another agenda. and this is, i think, also one of those issues that the anti-democrats in the hemisphere learned in the 1908's they could not shoot their way into power so that they had to learn the democratic practices but without adopting the democratic ethos and internalizing it. they have done a very good job. and as jorge mentioned, it is a matter that we struggle with because whether we like his policies or not, president chavez is elected. president morales, elected. you go down the list. that is a dilemma for us. a question at the base of your

question is, in a democratic process can a people basically vote themselves into sub jew gas station? -- subjugation? let me tie this back to the chairman's question about the instruments. i do think this is a matter in which the united states both in terms of the executive branch, the president, and this institution need to be clear, very clear, there needs to be moral clarity in terms of where this country is, in terms of supporting democrats not only in the hemisphere but around the world. ambiguity, in my opinion, works to the advantage of those who are opposed to democracy or misusing democratic means to promote their ultimate ends. so that is one thing that's important. second in the end, u.s. civil society is a potent force. it's been referenced earlier. there are a lot of in this hemisphere, engagement between private american citizens and private american groups with counterparts in the hemisphere. there's a phenomenal

interaction. but when it comes to the political side, there's a very small group that do this. i want to be careful because i don't want to sound self-serving. but there is basically a very small community that does this in this country in terms of the outreach to civil society that strengthens people terms of their ability to organize and advocate. it doesn't make any difference whether the issue is education, water or gender equality, violence against women. a number of things, that there's as a very small group that does that. again, the reality is that those of white house do this -- and i'll step back into my i.r.i. role, is we have thunders. and those thunders are the united states government. so this is not a plea foff funding. but this is the reality that we exist in. and in terms of what the chairman and you, sir, have made comments to, it is a matter of making sure that that support continues to be there. again, i think it's one part. the bully pulpit.

it's the moral. and another, it's a very real reality on the ground. it spreads throughout. you asked secretary jacobson about teams, u.s. missions. it's an important place as well for both of those elements to be. so again, i'm kind of mixing -- wearing two hats here in some ways. but hopefully that is a somewhat coherent answer to irquestion. -- your question. >> a few out-of-body experiences in less than five minutes moving back and forth. but i think it was very insightful. i want to pick up on something. then i'm finished for my part. you know, part of what you said mr. fisk, goes, in my mind -- i know it wasn't a plea for funding. i do believe, however, that these engagements of i.r.i., n.d.i. are very important. and part of my concern -- one of the reasons i have been promoting for several years now a social and economic fund for

the americas is because, why do people furnish to -- turn to very often the chavezes of the world? they turn because they are in deep economic straightaways -- straits. their governments prior have not responded to their hopes and dreams and aspirations. and someone comes along and promises the world and uses the rhetoric and then ultimately gets elected and then uses their position from a position of power to transform institutions that keep people power. and maybe they continue to do some pop liftic things, even though as observed, venezuela is doing worse in terms of its economy. so it seems to nea one of the things in our national interests and our national security -- forget about being a good neighbor, which is a desirable goal as well. if we, as part of our effort, help strengthen the

opportunities for us is stainable development, efforts, and education efforts in the hemisphere, we will give rise to a growing universe of citizens of the hemisphere who right now sit below the poverty level. and obviously are pretty dire in their straits and therefore are very susceptible to what ends up being a anti-democratic result. hence your statement is it right to go ahead and vote yourself into subjugation at the end of the day? it seems to me this is in the interest of the united states in our own hemisphere which is fractional as it relates to our overall international assistance. and yet everything that we talk about in this congress, or many of the things we talk about, undocumented immigration. well, the only reason people leave their countries is dire economic straits or civil unrest.

otherwise they'll stay. they're beautiful countries. so you want to stop the tide of undocumented immigration, one of the equations is, how do you create more stability and economic opportunities for people in the hemisphere? which also creates greater markets for u.s. services and products. you want to ensure that there isn't instability in the hemisphere in terms of security or that iran, china, and others don't have a deeper foothold than they purport to have. you then have a strengthened relationship in that respect. so i hope we can, you know, work to create a connection here that says that the work of i.r.i. and n.d.i. and some morrow bust efforts in creating development opportunities to have a growing middle class in the hemisphere is in the national interest and security of the united states. my question that i would be remiss if i didn't take advantage of dr. dominguez's expertise here is on mexico.

peas probably the count rin and hemisphere we are most economically intertwined by. and, of course that country has in the past five years been challenged by drug trafficking organizations. and i looked at the freed yom house's report, the authoritarian challenge to democracy where they dropped mexico's political rate from free to partially free. and i'm wondering, considering the challenges is that fair as an observation of mexico, one? and, two, what do countries like mexico that are fighting the narcotics challenge -- how do they balance the effort to create security and at the same time make sure that their

democratic institutions don't become authoritarian to some degree? >> i have great admiration for president calderon and extraordinarily difficult challenges that he faces and the work that he has been undertaking. i think it is fair to say that if you or i were journalists in mexico, we would feel intimidated not by the president of mexico or by his government -- either the mexican congress or the executive -- but by the threat that if i as a journalist write a story, that i could be shot. and the personal experience of assassination and intimidation of journalists in mexico has become a very severe issue. similarly, you probably saw the newspaper saying to criminal

organizations, tell us what you want to us do. we will censor ourselves. if need be. so it's not just the actual acts of physical violence but the realization of an important element of the mass media that they could not do the job that they want to do and from which mexico would gain. so it's one of those instances where i think at the experience -- using the example of journalists, because i think it's much clearer, the level of the working journalist, it is true. they are less free than they were before. what is unusual about this is that this is not as a result of the actions of a national government. this is not venezuela. this is not hugo chavez. one of the things that i do

find impressive -- again, difficult as it is. is the sustained efforts of a mexican government not only to deploy force to combat those who are committing crimes and assaulting ordinary citizens or journalists and many others, but also to try to train both the military and the police in the effective professional role of law enforcement and deployment of troops in ways that mexican security forces had not in the past. so paradoxically, as mexico's categoriesation has been dropped, the security forces are more likely to be respectful of human rights now than they were in the past. so i would give high marks to the role of the government as it faces this situation while at the same time recognizing that, yes, it is true that the experience of the ability to

express freedom of the press, freedom of expression, has declined. >> i just want to first thank the panel. it's been an excellent panel. appreciate very much how insightful this is. i wanted to briefly run -- i don't want to call it a doctrine of view of the region and see your per senses of it. the first is categoriesizing three different types of entities, of gofts that we run into. the first are turnies like cuba. this is a country whose government is snot legitimate, owe proses its people. the only reason it's in charge is because it's people are oppressed. and the united states' position towards that should be that you're not legitimate, the government, and that we are gooing to -- if we have a chance, we'll do everything we can to help your people bring about a change in these countries within our national interests and limitations. the second, nations like nicaragua, that have leaders trying to undermine them. our view of that is that when those reverts put in place,

whether it's intimidating the media or oop decision or intimidating dissent that we're going to criticize you for it and call you out for that. we're not going interfere in your internal affairs. we're not going to support things that may undermine democratic institutions, because we're into the going add to your problems and not going contribute to it. but we're also not going to celebrate and not ignore when you do things that undermine your democratic institutions. the challenge there will be -- the challenge historically has been what are the people undermining the democratic instrutions are pro american or pro our view of the world but are undermining democracy? then the third is nation that have democratic institutions. and respect them. and maybe from time to time those nations don't vote the way we want them to at the united nations. and maybe they make some weird alliance that we don't fully understand around the world and we can criticize that. but they are free. they are real republic and democracies. we should celebrate that. and the price or the benefit of that should be strong relationship with the united

states, do business with them. and this is something we should celebrate, encourage, and show the region that we don't want to control your domestic or foreign policy. we'd like to influence it as you would like to influence ours rge but ultimately if you are committed to democratic institutions, you know, we're going celebrate that and work woun that. and that will sfreng then our ties. kind of that few of the region as a way to go forward. i don't know if you have any impressions on that. >> thank you. just before addressing that question, could i add something to chairman menendez. i lived in mexico in the early 199 's. when i lived there, at least first three years, not a single media outlet in mexico city was free. so i think there's been a big change. and one should remember that context. is it certainly true that there are serious threats to the

lives and liberties of journalists and media organizations in mexico today. but they tend to be concentrated in remote -- that was the case in colombia in the 1990's. and just in terms of the security and its implications for democracy, i do think it's crucial that mexico moves faster on building a serious police force or serious police forces. the historic achievement. mexican revolution was to have taken the army out of politics. i think in contrast to what was happening elsewhere in the region, i think there is a danger that the longer that the army is involved in the front line of the crackdown against drug trafficking organizations, then the army risks becoming politicized and its reputation tarnished.

indeed, we're starting to see signs of violence in parts of mexico that are reminiscent of the revolution in some ways. so i think the task of strengthening police forces in mexico is absolutely vital. and it's going to slowly, in my view. but that is a task for the mexican government in which obviously the u.s. can help in terms of looking at its drugs and firearms policy. and then just to turn to senator rubio's characterization, yeah, i think that's right. you know, somebody whom you mentioned before, a man who has anti-democratic anti-seed yents but has arrived in power through a democratic process. as philosopher ortega said, "i am myself and my circumstances."

i think the way in which it's governed will depend on his circumstances >> think the united states can contributed to those circumstances being those of a strong underlying democracy in peru by engaging with him. i'm troubled slightly -- and this is a long discussion perhaps to get into at the end of this session. but i think there is finally a process of change going on in cuba i think it started. because i think that the economic changes that the government has announced, modest though they are, hemmed in by restrictions as they are, i this -- think for first time they involve changes that the regime will not be able to control. if, indeed, you know, one in three cubans is going to be working in self-employment and an insip yent private sector in a few years' time, then the

fundamental contract that the castro brothers established with people on the island that they would forego their liberty in return for a series -- the necessities of daily life being provided for by the state. that's gone. and cuban society will start changing very rapidly. i think other countries in latin america will engage with that. and at some time the united states will have to think about in what way it could constructively engage with that in order to achieve the outcome that i'm sure everybody wants of a democratic and capitalist future. >> just a comment on your characterization.

i think it's apt and it can give us clarity on a couple of points. this is probably easier and more effective for the u.s. government to work with and support country that already have constitutional, democratic regimes than to deal with those that understandably will worry about but it's harder to address. and so one connection could well be to the idea that senator menendez mentioned a moment ago, his longstanding interest in a fund for social and economical development. the most successful anti-poverty programs certainly in latin america but not just there has been economic growth. to be able to facilitate the kinds of economic growth that would bring people into the work force san idea on which we ought to focus firmly. the second observation we've learned, which is why the word

social is important in the name of this endeavor, is that economic growth alone is probably not as effective as economic growth with sensible, well targeted social policies. michael in his opening remarks mentioned additional cash transfers. to give you a coon text, one of the reasons the president of peru was elected is that for reasons that remain difficult for me to understand, neither of the two most recent presidents in peru chose to use the very impressive economic growth of peru over the last decade or so to invest in social policies. even when these proposals were presented to them by their advisors. so the notion of understanding the utility of economic growth and smart social policies, which other latin american countries have undertaken and to focus on supporting those who are doing good things, i

think it's a good road ahead. >> senator, i agree with your -- i add, you also got to remember there's going to be a government-to-government dynamic and a civil society to civil society dynamic in each of the three categories you have of countries. what i would encourage this subcommittee to keep in mind is we tend at times to focus on the tyrannies and the democratic countries at risk. we've got to remember there are still a lot of country that we would characterize -- or freedom house, for example, characterizes as fully free. but they're still struggling. they've got a number of issues on the political side, also on the socioeconomic side. it's understand why we focus on a cuba, on aven zail i can't. but we also have to focus on a guatemala, for example, focus on paraguay. those countries, you don't want to see moving into another column. that's something to keep in mind. i would put again, from an

n.g.o. perspective is the instruments are there to help people help themselves. ultimately the peoples of those countries have to be -- have to make the decisions. but again, the united states has a lot we can offer beyond trade agreements, beyond rhetoric. there are instruments here. we have to have the political will to do it and to deploy those. and that in the end becomes the ultimate question. >> well, thank you all very much. we have taken a lot of your time. you've been very generous. it's been very insightful. i think you will have helped the committee's work moving forward. we appreciate your testimony. the record will remain open for three gays -- days for members to ask question. with that this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, "q & a" with author scott miller. and live at 7:00 a.m., your

calls and comments on "washington journal." >> today on c-span, the dalai lama and vein sent harding, martin luther king jr.'s speechwriter, talk about non-violence. they spoke to more than 10 people at the university of arkansas osama bin laden's death, the execution of saddam hussein, and the death penalty. >> the number of people who kill through violence, over 200 million, but problem not solved. i think that kind of action and also others, exploitation, also i think lay down the seed of hatred. sometimes the arabs and here. >> watch this discussion this

evening at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. tonight on c-span, a look back at president nixon's foreign policy. members of his administration and the president's son-in-law, edward cox, discuss topics including communism in china, invading north vietnam, and the 1967 war in the middle east. >> the discussion then in the newspapers were nixon's secret plan for peace. what was it? of course, he never talked about that. that was rockefeller pushing nixon to say something to expose what thinks plan was. rockefeller didn't think nixon had a plan. i happened to be in the library waiting for trisha to change her clothes, we were going out. he comes in after a hard day of campaigning. he was relaxing. likes to listen to tchaikovsky. and i'm, should ski or not? well, i'm almost a member of the family.